Compressor Engineering Corporation v. Manufacturers Financial, Charity Marketing LLC, and Richard K. Stephens

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0767n.06
No. 10-2072
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Compressor Engineering Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Manufacturers Financial, Charity Marketing LLC,
and Richard K. Stephens,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Compressor Engineering Corporation brought a claim in federal court
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), which provides
for a private right of action in state court. Intervening precedent from this court compels the
conclusion that there was federal-question jurisdiction in this case.
Compressor Engineering Corporation brought suit in federal court after defendants
Manufacturers Financial Corporation and Charity Marketing LLC allegedly sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements to Compressor Engineering and at least 39 others. Compressor Engineering
did not have an established business relationship with either defendant, and did not give either
defendant permission to send Compressor Engineering advertisements by fax. There is no diversity
of citizenship between the parties. Compressor Engineering argued that the district court had

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the TCPA, a federal statute. The district court followed the
vast majority of federal courts to address this question, as well as an unpublished opinion from this
court, Dun-Rite Construction, Inc. v. Amazing Tickets, Inc., No. 04-3216, 2004 WL 3239533 (6th
Cir. Dec. 16, 2004), to hold that the TCPA is not a sufficient basis for federal-question jurisdiction.
In a recent published opinion, this court decided squarely that a “district court ha[s] federal-
question jurisdiction over the claims under the Telephone Act[.]” Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite,
LLC, 630 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2010), Charvat controls the resolution of this appeal, and no other
issues are presented.
We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.

-- 2 of 2 --